Thanks for the time you've taken to lay this out! A few things to maybe narrow down a bit more:
- In John 6:28 I agree this is what they ask Jesus ("...we do"), but, in context, Jesus is not answering them directly, as we can see clearly in 6:25-26. So, I think we can be a bit more open to what He may be saying and including in 6:29.
- When studying John with my Greek language professor, and later with another exegetical teacher, we encountered several instances where John seems clearly to include more than one legitimate meaning in some of his statements.
- In the context of John 6, I see clearly that Jesus has told - actually commanded - these unbelievers to work for the gift He gives. I've no problem with being told there are things we need to do to be saved. In a very lengthy, long-term personal study, I've noted many actions on our part involved in Biblical Faith itself, let alone some of the other actions you've mentioned.
- Continuing in John 6 context, Jesus also states in 6:44-45 some of the work God is doing to bring us to the decision to believe in His Son, whom He sent (God's work): 44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws (can literally be "drags") him. In 45 He says God is teaching (inferring about His Son). So God our Father is dragging people to His Son and/by teaching. This is God working to get us to believe. Then also in 45 we must hear & learn from Him in order to come to Jesus. Not pressing this too hard here, but "hear" can legitimately trend into "obey."
- My point is this: Jesus in context is speaking both about God's work in this evangelization process, and our work in response. God taking the initiative to bring us into His Salvation, so His work being primary, and our commanded work in response. Then in 6:65 the work by our Father to grant people to His Son. Concluding, I see contextual warrant for another of those more than one meaning in John's writings.
- Prior to your post, I was taking "work of God" in 6:29 as primarily God's work. I had consider a double meaning, but was weighting toward God's work. I'm now moving a bit to see that double meaning more clearly and "work of God" being another intentionally ambiguous (but ruled by context) wording. As I previously stated, there are several ways this phrase can be legitimately translated to be more specific. So God's work and our work in response both being included (in context).
- Thoughts?
In regards to Romans 4, I
think I recall your saying Paul is maintaining his "works of law" context from Rom3 into his discussion of Abraham and credited righteousness not by works. I'm not sure I agree entirely, because, as I posted earlier, Paul is talking about all kinds of actions and works in prior context.
At some level we have to remind ourselves that our Salvation is God's Plan & Work. As you said, He owes us nothing (no debt, no obligation). He is thus primary & foundational in our Salvation and apart from His initiative we've got nothing, no matter what we may do. In a sense, I think this is part of what Paul's getting at in the beginning of Rom4 and Eph2. In this sense, Paul doesn't have to necessarily narrow down to "works of law" here. He does that in other places.
The mistake, at least since Luther, as you've pointed out, is that some to many have taken this "no works" into absurdity and thus trampled over verses like John 6:27, and ignored the many places where actions are identified in Biblical Faith, and essentially rewritten Phil2:12 as meaning sanctification even though it clearly says salvation.
After seminary & several years of exegetical studies and teaching, it became very simple to me: Just let the Text say what it says. Then adjust our thinking accordingly.
Again, your posts are greatly appreciated.
